10x8 And 14" Red Dot Artar

T

thronobulax

Very Active Poster
Registered User
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,336
I have both a 19" APO Artar and a 14" Red Dot Artar, both reshuttered in modern Copals. I am contemplating thme for use on a yet-to-be-purchased 10x8 camera.

The former should easily cover the format but I am finding a hot mess of conflicting advice on the 14" RD. Have any of you gentle geniuses experience with using that lens on this format? Will it work well at infinity or just closer up for, say, portraits?
 
Hello Thronobulax.
As a biological photographer on staff at Yale I worked with a 14" RD Artar and a 19" Artar as well. Close up at about 1/4 life size) the 19 covered 8x10, At infinity, it simply didn't, although that was not obvious on the groundglass. I certainly was obvious in the negatives! I finally nagged the boss until he acquired a 14" Commercial Ektar. Ah, happiness. It covered at infinity, if centered, and it was superb for closeups.
 
Brian, did you possibly mis-type when you said: " Close up at about 1/4 life size) the 19 covered 8x10, At infinity, it simply didn't, although that was not obvious on the groundglass" , rather what you meant was the 14 didn't cover. I ask because I have a piece of Goerz Optical Company literature that shows the 19 inch Red Dot Artar covers a "plate diagonal" of 16.1 inches at infinity. (And the 14 inch Red Dot Artar covers a "plate diagonal" of 11.9 inches at infinity).

Also the photographer Morley Baer used the 19 inch Red Dot Artar extensively with his 8 x 10 doing architectural and landscape work.

David
 
Brian Berry said:
Hello Thronobulax.
As a biological photographer on staff at Yale I worked with a 14" RD Artar and a 19" Artar as well. Close up at about 1/4 life size) the 19 covered 8x10, At infinity, it simply didn't, although that was not obvious on the groundglass. I certainly was obvious in the negatives! I finally nagged the boss until he acquired a 14" Commercial Ektar. Ah, happiness. It covered at infinity, if centered, and it was superb for closeups.
Click to expand...
As @David Lindquist notes, I think there may be a typo there. It would seem that the 14" RD will not cover 10x8 at infinity, but the 19" APO did. Is this correct?
 
I'm afraid this hinges on your definition of "coverage." The 19" at f22 will form an image out to the corners on 8x10, but the center definition will be unmistakably sharper and more contrasty than the corners. Stop it down to f45, however, and the difference will disappear -- you get uniformly lower definition across the entire negative. Good enough for contact prints, though.
( I had occasion in the 1960's to print some of Edward Weston's 8x10 negatives, made with a 19-inch rapid rectilinear. Oops -- good enough for contacts, but not a bit sharp when enlarged. None of them!)
My work was mostly 8 x10 Ektachromes of art for use in a scanner for color book covers made for a
separation house. The 19" Red Dot Artar simply did not enlarge satisfactorily when used at infinity. The lowered contrast in the corners of the image was painful, by the way, when used for landscape photographs.
The 14" Red Dot Artar was a jewel on 5x7. Not so on 8x10.
To tell you something relevant to most of 5x4 readers: a 10 and 3/4 inch red dot tartar was really good for 4x5 work. But -- swings and tilts were limited to the rear standard at most magnifications. Stopped down to 16, wonderful. Stopped down to 32 -- oops. Not so good. I did hundreds of exteriors with mine, and it called for very careful attention to the use of swings and tilts on 4x5. For a big enlargement from a 4x5 negative, f22 was ideal. F32 -- careful examination of the negative with a loupe showed the loss in definition. Ditto when scanned and enlarged.
Oh, my. It all depends on the quality standard you aim for. I was Yale's biological photographer in the sixties and the seventies. They pressed me for really high quality images. For example, they routinely used 31/4 by 41/4 lantern slides for auditorium presentations projected on a screen that was 16 feet square. Small losses you could ignore in an 8x10 print were obvious on that big screen.
My favorite lenses for those lantern slides: Rodenstock Sironars of about 8 inches focal length. And used at apertures of f16 or 22.
 
David Lindquist said:
Brian, did you possibly mis-type when you said: " Close up at about 1/4 life size) the 19 covered 8x10, At infinity, it simply didn't, although that was not obvious on the groundglass" , rather what you meant was the 14 didn't cover. I ask because I have a piece of Goerz Optical Company literature that shows the 19 inch Red Dot Artar covers a "plate diagonal" of 16.1 inches at infinity. (And the 14 inch Red Dot Artar covers a "plate diagonal" of 11.9 inches at infinity).

Also the photographer Morley Baer used the 19 inch Red Dot Artar extensively with his 8 x 10 doing architectural and landscape work.

David
Click to expand...
 
David-- one more thing. Now that Yale isn't buying the equipment for me anymore, I have slimmed down my kit quite a bit. The lens that really does good closeup work for me is one many 5x4 folks will know: a 203 mm f7.7 Kodak Anastigmat. I also use a Kodak 81/2 Commercial Ektar, similar in coverage, but beautiful in micro contrast and color rendition.
 
Brian Berry said:
I'm afraid this hinges on your definition of "coverage." The 19" at f22 will form an image out to the corners on 8x10, but the center definition will be unmistakably sharper and more contrasty than the corners. Stop it down to f45, however, and the difference will disappear -- you get uniformly lower definition across the entire negative. Good enough for contact prints, though.
( I had occasion in the 1960's to print some of Edward Weston's 8x10 negatives, made with a 19-inch rapid rectilinear. Oops -- good enough for contacts, but not a bit sharp when enlarged. None of them!)
My work was mostly 8 x10 Ektachromes of art for use in a scanner for color book covers made for a
separation house. The 19" Red Dot Artar simply did not enlarge satisfactorily when used at infinity. The lowered contrast in the corners of the image was painful, by the way, when used for landscape photographs.
The 14" Red Dot Artar was a jewel on 5x7. Not so on 8x10.
To tell you something relevant to most of 5x4 readers: a 10 and 3/4 inch red dot tartar was really good for 4x5 work. But -- swings and tilts were limited to the rear standard at most magnifications. Stopped down to 16, wonderful. Stopped down to 32 -- oops. Not so good. I did hundreds of exteriors with mine, and it called for very careful attention to the use of swings and tilts on 4x5. For a big enlargement from a 4x5 negative, f22 was ideal. F32 -- careful examination of the negative with a loupe showed the loss in definition. Ditto when scanned and enlarged.
Oh, my. It all depends on the quality standard you aim for. I was Yale's biological photographer in the sixties and the seventies. They pressed me for really high quality images. For example, they routinely used 31/4 by 41/4 lantern slides for auditorium presentations projected on a screen that was 16 feet square. Small losses you could ignore in an 8x10 print were obvious on that big screen.
My favorite lenses for those lantern slides: Rodenstock Sironars of about 8 inches focal length. And used at apertures of f16 or 22.
Click to expand...

So, my 14" is a Red Dot, but the 19" is an APO. Would the APO have the same coverage limitations, do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top